B.K and Another v S.M and Another (2017/33269) [2019] ZAGPJHC 563 (17 May 2019)

B.K and Another v S.M and Another (2017/33269) [2019] ZAGPJHC 563 (17 May 2019)

The court found that the applicants had failed to provide sufficient grounds for a postponement based on new information or legal representation, as their conduct in unilaterally removing the matter from the roll and failing to attend court was unjustified. However, due to the seriousness of the allegations and the need for proper legal representation, the court granted a postponement to avoid injustice. The court regulated the further conduct of proceedings to ensure the first respondent's rights were not unduly prejudiced by delay, especially as the interim interdict silenced her from speaking about alleged sexual abuse. The applicants were ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 563
Parties
Applicant: B[...] K[...]; Applicant: K[...] G[...] I[...]; Respondent: S[...] M[...]; Respondent: A[...] M[...]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 May 2019
Case Number
2017/33269
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Postponement and Regulation of Interim Interdict
Outcome
Postponement granted; costs of postponement awarded against applicants on an attorney and client scale; interim interdict to continue pending final determination.
Judges
SJ Cowen
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Postponement, Freedom of Expression, Sexual Harassment, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Interim Interdict Postponement Freedom of Expression Sexual Harassment Abuse of Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B[...] K[...]

Applicant

K[...] G[...] I[...]

Applicant

S[...] M[...]

Respondent

A[...] M[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Postponement and Regulation of Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a postponement of the urgent application.
  2. 2 Whether the interim interdict restraining the first respondent from making public statements should continue pending finalisation.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' conduct in delaying proceedings warrants a punitive costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had failed to provide sufficient grounds for a postponement based on new information or legal representation, as their conduct in unilaterally removing the matter from the roll and failing to attend court was unjustified. However, due to the seriousness of the allegations and the need for proper legal representation, the court granted a postponement to avoid injustice. The court regulated the further conduct of proceedings to ensure the first respondent's rights were not unduly prejudiced by delay, especially as the interim interdict silenced her from speaking about alleged sexual abuse. The applicants were ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the...

Court Disposition

Postponement granted; costs of postponement awarded against applicants on an attorney and client scale; interim interdict to continue pending final determination.

Orders

  • The matter is postponed to 18 June 2019.
  • Applicants to file any replying affidavit by 6 May 2019.